alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

Certification

I,
Ronald J. Kramer, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Griffon Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
November 17, 2010

/s/ RONALD J. KRAMERRonald J. Kramer Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Before the First Division,

November 9, 1954

No. 58493.

petition 6952-R (Los Angeles).

#### James Loudon & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Mollison, Judge:

This is a petition filed under the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for the remission of additional duties accruing by reason of undervaluation on entry of certain wire rods.

From the record, it clearly appears that the undervaluation was technical and not intentional. It appears that the petitioner is a customs brokerage firm which handled the entry of the merchandise for the account of the ultimate consignee. *416Entry was made on the basis of the purchase price stated in dollars on the consular invoice. In the appropriate column on the same invoice, the home market value in French francs was clearly stated. Although the duties applicable to wire rods under paragraph 315 of the act are specific duties, they are graduated on a rising scale within certain value ranges.

Thus, the entered value of the wire rods was slightly over *2}i*cents per pound, placing them within the provision for wire rods, valued at over *2%*cents but not over 4 cents per pound, and calling for duty at the rate of 0.15 cent per pound under paragraph 315 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Annecy Protocol of Terms of Accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, reported in T. D. 52373, supplemented by Presidential proclamation, T. D. 52462.

The merchandise was appraised on the basis of the French franc price stated in the consular invoice as the home market value, which resulted in a slightly higher value per pound for the wire rods, but still kept it within the value bracket of *2}í*to 4 cents per pound. There was, therefore, no increase in regular duties called for by reason of the undervaluation.

Section 489, however, provided that additional duties should attach “if the final appraised value of any article of imported merchandise which is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty *or to a duty based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof”*[italics supplied] should exceed the entered value.

Because of the fact that the merchandise was specific duty merchandise, the customs broker handling the entry mistakenly believed that the slightly higher home market specified in the invoice was unimportant and irrelevant, as no increased duty could be called for based upon value of the merchandise. He thereby overlooked the fact that the duty on the wire rods in issue was, in fact, “based upon or regulated * * * by the value thereof.”

We are satisfied that the record shows that the undervaluation on entry was not intentional but was caused by an oversight. We, therefore, find that entry at less value than that returned upon appraisement was made without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise.

Judgment will therefore issue granting the petition accordingly.
No. 66779.

#### Romanelli Import Export Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/28494 (B) and 60/27317 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of coffee brewers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 64580, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 7,838a.

#### KIRK v. ARMSTRONG.

[Hempst. 283.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

July, 1835.

Justices of the Peace — Appeal from Judgment —Notice.

Appeal from a justice not taken on the day of trial, ten days’ notice before the sitting of the next court authorized to try the same, must be given to the opposite party.

Error to Hempstead circuit court.

Before JOHNSON and YELL, JJ.

1

 [Reported by Samuel H. Hempstead, Esq.]

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

On the 5th of April. 1834. William Kirk obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace against Andrew J. Armstrong, for twenty dollars *673damages and costs of suit, from which judgment Armstrong prayed an appeal to the Hempstead circuit court, on the 3rd day of May, 1834. Armstrong failed to notify Kirk that he had taken an appeal. At the next term of the Hempstead circuit court, Kirk failed to appear, and his suit, on the motion of Armstrong, was dismissed with costs. To this judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.

When an appeal is not prayed for on the day of trial, the party appealing is required by law to notify the opposite party, at least ten days before the next sitting of the court authorized to try the same. This not having been done, it was clearly erroneous to dismiss the suit Geyer's Dig. 391. Judgment reversed.
-                          Home                     
-                          Data Products                     
-                 Feed Grains Database            

# Feed Grains Database

The Feed Grains Database is a statistical compilation of four feed grains (corn, grain sorghum, barley, and oats), foreign coarse grains (feed grains plus rye, millet, and mixed grains), hay, and related items. These statistics include data published in the monthly Feed Outlook and Feed Grains Yearbook tables. Data are displayed as monthly, quarterly, and/or annual depending upon the data series.

The key purpose of the Feed Grain Database is to provide a variety of current and historical time-series feed grain data, some of which cannot be found elsewhere, to the public in a user-friendly form. Available data include but are not limited to:
          - Supply: beginning stocks, production, and imports;
          - Demand: utilization for food, seed, and industrial uses, feed and residual, export, and ending stocks;
          - Prices: farm and market prices;
          - Quantities: concentrates, oilseed meals, and animal-and grain-protein feeds;
          - Feed-price ratios for livestock, poultry, and milk;
          - And more

The database is updated each month at noon EST on the first business day after the release of the *World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE)* report. Users can download data into Excel, XML and PDF file formats.

Enter the App

- Overview
- Feed Grains Custom Query
- Feed Grains: Yearbook Tables
- Documentation

-  Crops 
-  Bioenergy 
-  Corn and Other Feed Grains 
-  Animal Products 
-  Cattle & Beef 
-  Dairy 
-  Hogs & Pork 
-  Poultry & Eggs 
-  Sheep, Lamb & Mutton 
-  Farm Economy 
-  Animal Policy & Regulatory Issues 

**Last updated:** Friday, September 13, 2024

**For more information, contact:**Aaron M.  Ates
Order filed January 14, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00971-CR

NO. 14-12-01011-CR

____________

FRANKIE RAYSHAWN HILL-TURNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 10-DCR-056063 & 10-DCR-056064

ORDER

Appellant was convicted by a jury of murder in appellate cause number 14-

12-00971-CR, and aggravated robbery in appellate cause number 14-12-01011-

CR. Appellant filed a brief on July 29, 2013, in which his sole issue contends the 

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s implicit rejection that appellant acted 

in self defense when he shot the complainants.

The record reflects that the court did not instruct the jury on self-defense in 
the aggravated robbery case as it did in the murder case. Appellant has not raised a 

separate issue challenging his conviction for aggravated robbery in cause number 

14-12-01011-CR. Counsel’s failure to raise any issues addressing the aggravated 

robbery conviction without following the procedures of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 742–44 (1967) deprives appellant of effective assistance of counsel.

To provide appellant with the effective assistance of counsel on appeal, it is 

ORDERED that appellant’s counsel, Mandy Miller, file an amended brief in 

compliance with the appellate rules and the Anders procedure in this court on or 

before February 14, 2014. 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Finity Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10 -QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I John A.
Courter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

*1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

*2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                  /s/John A. Courter
                                                  ------------------
                                                   John A. Courter

*The foregoing certification relates to a registrant which has ceased operations
and has assets as of December 31, 2002 consisting solely of cash in the amount
of $4,428.00. Accordingly, the registrant has no disclosure controls and
procedures or internal controls and procedures with respect to which conclusions
about, or an evaluation of, effectiveness or significant changes thereof can be
disclosed as required by Item 307of Regulation S-B.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JACOB CAPOZIO,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 157, 2023

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 2109007136 (S)

§ 2108014142 (S) 

§

§ 

Submitted: August 8, 2023

Decided: August 16, 2023

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on July 7, 2023, the Chief Deputy Clerk sent a 

notice of brief delinquency to the appellant because he had not filed an opening brief 

by the June 23, 2023 deadline set by the Court. On July 19, 2023, the Chief Deputy 

Clerk issued a notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening brief. The 

appellant received the notice, as evidenced by the return receipt filed with the Court

on July 26, 2023. A timely response to the notice to show cause was due on or before

August 7, 2023. To date, the appellant has not filed an opening brief or responded 

to the notice to show cause. Dismissal of this action is therefore deemed to be 

unopposed.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths

Justice
No. 64814.

#### Waldburger & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 320529-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Complainant, 

v. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK 

AND NEW JERSEY, 

Respondent. 

Docket FAA-16-14-13 

OPPOSITION OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 

TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Marc L. Warren 

Keith J. Harrison 

Gerald F. Murphy 

Steven J. Seiden 

CROWELL & MORING LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 624-2500 

mwarren@crowell.com 

Robert S. Span 

Alan K. Steinbrecher 

Sophy Chen 

STEINBRECHER & SPAN LLP 

1155 F Street, NW, Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 559-8680 

rspan@steinbrecherspan.com 

Counsel for United Airlines, Inc. 
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Complainant, 

v. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK 

AND NEW JERSEY, 

Respondent. 

Docket FAA-16-14-13 

OPPOSITION OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 

TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY 

Complainant United Airlines, Inc. ("United") opposes Respondent The Port 

Authority of New York and New Jersey's ("Port Authority") unauthorized April 27, 

2015 Motion for Leave to File a Reply to United's March 27, 2015 Answer to the 

Port Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "April 27 Motion"). The April 

27 Motion is: (1) moot in light of the FAA Order entered that same day denying the 

Port Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) not expressly authorized under 

Pm·t Hi's administrative proeedures; and (g) untimely insofar as the Port l.uthority 

filed it on the date the FAA's decision on the Port Authority's Motion for Summary 

Judgment was due. Because the April27 Motion is essentially a nullity, United 

respectfully requests that it be withdrawn or, alternatively, rejected out of hand. 
May 1, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

\Robert S. Span 

Alan K. Steinbrecher 

Sophy Chen 

STEINBRECHER & SPAN LLP 

1155 F Street, NW, Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 559-8680 

rspan@steinbrecherspan.com 

2 

Marc Warren 

Keith J. Harrison 

Gerald F. Murphy 

Steven J. Seiden 

CROWELL & MORING LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 624-2500 

mwarren@crowell.com 

Counsel for 

United Airlines, Inc. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have this date served the foregoing Opposition of United 

Airlines, Inc. on the following persons by overnight express mail, in accordance 

with the Department's Rules of Practice: 

Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

May 1, 2015 

Carlene V. Mcintyre 

Arnold D. Kolikoff 

Faith Tabafunda 

Law Department 

The Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey 

150 Greenwich Street, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10006 

Steven J. Seiden
No. 48427.

#### Protests 954773-G, etc., of Fidelity Distributing Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 55854.

protest 170760-K (New York).

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 51367.

#### Protests 119247-K, etc., of Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respeets as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

January 24, 1950

No. 53975.

#### Dean Liquor Distributors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64125-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# FILED October 2, 1995 Cecil Crowson, Jr. App ellate C ou rt Clerk I N THECOUR

TOFAP PEALS OFTENNES S EE EA S TER N S EC TI O N

J . T. H

O LT a n d w

i f e ) GR EENECOUNTY GER TR UDE HOLTa n d ) 03A 01- 9505- C

H - 00161 DENNI S HOLT ) ) P l a i n tif f s - A

p p e lle e s )

) ) v. ) HON. DENNI S H. I NM AN, ) C HANC ELLOR ) O P A L TO LLI V ER a n d ) FR ED D Y L. S M ELC ER ) ) D e f e nda nt s - A

ppe l l a nt s ) AFF I R M ED AND R

EM ANDED

FR ANC I S X. S ANTOR

Ea n d FR

ANC I S X. S ANTOR

E, J R. , OFGR

EENEVI LLE F OR AP PELLANTS KYLEK. KI NG a n d K. KI DW ELLKI NG, J R. , OFGR EENEVI LLEF OR A P PELLEES

O PI N I O N

G odda r d, P . J .
Thi s i s a s ui t t o de t e r m i ne t he bounda r y l i ne be t w e e n t he P l a i nt i f f s ' a nd t he D e f e nda nt s ' pr ope r t y a nd t o c onf i r m t ha t t he P l a i nt i f f s ha ve a r i ght - of - w a y ove r t he pr ope r t y of t he D e f e n d a n t s .1 Ru l e 10 . (a ) A f f i r m a n c e W i t hout O

p i n i o n . T h e Co u r t, with th e c onc u r r e n c e of al l j udge s par t i c i p a t i ng i n t h e ca s e , m a y af f i r m

t h e ac t i on of t h e t r i a l cour t by or d e r w i t hout r e nde r i ng a f o r m a l opi n i on w

h e n an opi n i o n woul d have no pr e c e d e n t i a l val u e and one or m o r e of t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m

s t a n ces exi s t an d ar e d i spo s i t i v e o f t h e ap p eal : ( 1 ) t h e Co u r t co n c u r s i n t h e f act s as f o u n d o r as f o u n d b y n ecess a r y i m p l i c a t i on by t h e t r i a l cour t . ( 2 ) t h e r e i s m

a t e r i a l evi d e n c e t o s uppor t t h e ver d i c t of t h e j u r y . ( 3 ) n o r e v e r s i b l e er r o r o f l a w ap p ear s . S u c h cases m

a y b e af f i r m

e d as f o l l o ws : "Af f i r m e d i n acco r d a n ce w i t h Co u r t o f A

p p eal s Ru l e 1 0 ( a ) . " 2 The Tr i a l C

our t f ound a dve r s e l y t o t he D e f e nda nt s ' c ont e nt i on a s t o t he l oc a t i on of t he bounda r y l i ne a nd t he e xi s t e nc e of t he r i ght - of - w a y, r e s ul t i ng i n t hi s a ppe a l w hi c h c ont e nds t he Tr i a l C our t w a s i n e r r or i n bot h r e s pe c t s . O ur r e vi e w

of t he r e c or d pe r s ua de s us t hi s i s a n a ppr opr i a t e c a s e f or a f f i r m a nc e unde r R

ul e 10( a ) of t hi s C our t . 1
The C ha nc e l l or i s a c c or di ngl y a f f i r m e d a nd t he c a us e i s r e m a nde d f or s uc h f ur t he r pr oc e e di ngs , i f a ny, a s m a y be ne c e s s a r y a nd c ol l e c t i on of c os t s be l ow . C os t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t t he D e f e nda nt s .

_______________________________ H ous t on M

. G odda r d, P . J . CONC UR:

________________________________ D on T . M

c M ur r a y, J .3

________________________________ C h a r l e s D

. S u s a n o , J r ., J .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

GRACE LAWRENCE ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 02-CV-4440 

TRANS UNION, LLC ) 

 ) 

 and ) 

 ) 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 )

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

 Plaintiff Grace Lawrence, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this 

Notice of Supplemental Authority to bring to the Court’s attention recent authority from the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania that bears directly on the parties’ pending briefing regarding 

Defendant Trans Union’s (“TU’s) motion for summary judgment. 

 On September 16, 2003, in the case of Crane v. Trans Union, LLC, CA No. 02-7599 

(E.D. Pa. 2003), Judge Stewart Dalzell issued a Memorandum and Order denying a motion for 

summary judgment filed by Defendant Trans Union, LLC. A copy of the Crane Memorandum is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. TU’s motion in Crane presented virtually identical arguments it 

has asserted in its instant motion regarding its general procedures for reporting credit information 

and responding to disputes received from consumers, the types of damages available under the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and the availability of a private cause of 

action under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. 

201-9 et seq. Crane specifically addresses these issues, citing statutory authority and caselaw. 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 35 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 1 of 2
2 

Further, Crane allowed the plaintiff’s punitive damages claim to proceed to trial on the basis of 

the deposition testimony from TU’s Consumer Relations Manager, Eileen Little, that Plaintiff’s 

counsel has placed before this Court in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Response to TU’s 

Motion For Summary Judgment. See Declaration of James A. Francis attached hereto as Exhibit 

B. Given the Crane Court’s disposition of these legal arguments and reliance on the evidence 

taken in this case, Plaintiff submits this decision as supplemental authority to the pending 

summary judgment briefing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

 BY: ____________________________ 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE 

MARK D. MAILMAN, ESQUIRE 

JOHN SOUMILAS, ESQUIRE 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

 100 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

Date: September 17, 2003 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 35 Filed 09/17/2003 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

SHAMEK HYNSON : NO. 05-576-2

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2009, Defendant Shamek Hynson’s Motion for Judgment

of Acquittal (Document 302) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Hynson’s motion for

judgment of acquittal as to Count 16 of the Second Superseding Indictment, charging him with

violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), is GRANTED. The remainder of his motion is DENIED.

 BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Juan R. Sánchez 

 JUAN R. SÁNCHEZ, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00576-JS Document 343 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 1
S. 1532 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

An Act 

To disqualify from operating a commercial motor vehicle for life an individual 

who uses a commercial motor vehicle in committing a felony involving human 

trafficking. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Human Trafficking on Our 

Roads Act’’. 

SEC. 2. LIFETIME DISQUALIFICATION WITHOUT REINSTATEMENT. 

Section 31310(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

VIOLATIONS’’ and inserting ‘‘LIFETIME DISQUALIFICATION WITHOUT REINSTATEMENT’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE VIOLATIONS.—The Secretary’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) HUMAN TRAFFICKING VIOLATIONS.—The Secretary shall 

disqualify from operating a commercial motor vehicle for life 

an individual who uses a commercial motor vehicle in committing a felony involving an act or practice described in paragraph 

(9) of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 

of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)).’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.